Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can often feel like a thinly veiled form of rigid racial ideology.
It assumes from the outset that most people are victims of racism and sexism, predominantly at the hands of white men.
However, DEI doesn’t account for factors like class or wealth, which complicates its narratives.
This means that it overlooks countless affluent, non-white Americans, along with many poor white individuals. It’s all quite absurd, really.
Take, for instance, what former First Lady Michelle Obama has been experiencing during her book tour.
Throughout interviews, she seems unable to stop mentioning the racism she allegedly faced, even as one of the most powerful women in the U.S.
She’s indicated that she didn’t receive the same privileges afforded to other white first ladies.
She wasn’t able to access enough complimentary items for the First Family and had to hire multiple stylists daily just to conform to “white” beauty standards. It’s not as if every Asian or Hispanic person has straight hair, and plenty of white folks have curly hair that’s tricky to manage.
She even argues that, today, black individuals struggle to swim due to societal pressures around hair maintenance imposed by white people. (Related: Michelle Obama criticizes white people in recent book interview)
It seems she doesn’t quite grasp how ridiculous her claims are, given her belief in DEI overlooks socioeconomic status.
She and her husband, former President Barack Obama, own several properties—three, to be exact—worth about $40 million collectively, in addition to their previous Chicago home.
Altogether, their estimated net worth ranges from $70 million to $100 million. They travel privately, typically alongside ample Secret Service protection.
The more Michelle holds onto this notion of unchanging racial victimhood, the more outlandish and offensive her statements appear.
Then there’s the so-called Trump Derangement Syndrome, which similarly positions Trump as irredeemably evil, compelling anyone to expose him by any means necessary.
This intense hatred can blind us to the overlooked facts, much like how the left fails to see their own detrimental choices.
Now, let’s consider the “Epstein Files.”
For four years, the Biden administration resisted releasing names found in countless emails linked to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein.
While Trump’s name was in there, many saw it as largely inconsequential.
Moreover, there’s little evidence proving President Trump was entangled in Epstein’s web of blackmail. In fact, Trump actually distanced himself from Epstein well before any criminal convictions occurred. (Related: President Obama demonstrates poor handling of hecklers)
Had Trump’s information made its way out, Democrats—who have tirelessly pursued Trump legally—would have undoubtedly leaked the files instantly.
So when Trump opted to keep certain files private post-Biden, the left blindly criticized him, assuming he was trying to hide something.
They urged him to disclose everything without considering why their own party had kept things under wraps.
Eventually, Trump began to release documents.
What these records revealed weren’t shocking new statements from him but instead highlighted Democratic figures, including former Harvard University President Larry Summers.
U.S. Virgin Islands Democratic Representative Stacey Plaskett is also shown in these files as being a partisan ally of Epstein.
The documents indicated that Ms. Plaskett, consumed by her Trump hatred, was seen soliciting Congressional witnesses to devise ways to vilify Trump.
Why weren’t wiser Democrats flagging this obsessive pursuit within their party?
There’s also the issue of climate change beliefs among Democrats that seem riddled with contradictions.
Take the Obamas, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi—they all reside in coastal homes, often flying in private jets while advocating for stricter environmental policies.
Despite their personal choices, they demand the public limit energy use, like turning off air conditioners or giving up diesel trucks.
Even Bill Gates, a billionaire and environmental advocate, has been caught in contradictory statements regarding climate change. The reason? “Renewables” like wind and solar likely won’t generate the vast amounts of electricity that left-leaning tech visionaries like Gates need to fuel their ambitions.
And climate doctrine doesn’t support significantly ramping up U.S. oil and gas production to aid an energy-deprived Europe or curbing Russia’s oil dominance.
The crux of partisanship rests in its deductive reasoning rather than evaluating evidence.
When facts are bent to fit a pre-existing ideology, it leads to illogical conclusions.
That’s why rigid beliefs around climate change, DEI, and Trump Derangement Syndrome often make followers appear rather foolish.
